On 2/3/15 11:00 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> Crazy ideas: Could we make wal_level something other than
> PGC_POSTMASTER? PGC_SIGHUP would be nice... Could we, maybe, even
> make it a derived value rather than one that is explicitly configured?
> Like, if you set max_wal_senders>0, you automatically
On 02/04/2015 06:48 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> Anyway, I'm not talking about deriving the GUC, I'm talking about
> deriving the WAL level which is currently controlled solely by the
> GUC. We do something like this for full-page writes. Even if you in
> general have full_page_writes=off, trying to
Andres Freund writes:
> On 2015-02-03 11:00:43 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
>> Could we, maybe, even make it a derived value rather than one that is
>> explicitly configured? Like, if you set max_wal_senders>0, you
>> automatically get
>> wal_level=hot_standby?
> Our experience with derived gucs i
On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 8:44 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
>> I think my vote is to maintain the status quo. What you're basically
>> proposing to do is ship the system half-configured for replication,
>> and I don't see the point of that.
>
> Not only replication, but also hot backup.
>
> I think we s
On 2015-02-03 11:00:43 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 7:43 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> > I think these days there's no reason for the split between the archive
> > and hot_standby wal levels. The split was made out of volume and
> > stability concerns. I think we can by now be c
On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 7:43 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> I think these days there's no reason for the split between the archive
> and hot_standby wal levels. The split was made out of volume and
> stability concerns. I think we can by now be confident about the
> wal_level = hot_standby changes (not
On 2015-02-03 10:41:04 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund writes:
> > Additionally I think we should change the default for wal_level to
> > hot_standby and max_wal_senders (maybe to 5). That way users can use
> > pg_basebackup and setup streaming standbys without having to restart the
> > pri
Andres Freund writes:
> Additionally I think we should change the default for wal_level to
> hot_standby and max_wal_senders (maybe to 5). That way users can use
> pg_basebackup and setup streaming standbys without having to restart the
> primary. I think that'd be a important step in making setup
On 2015-02-03 21:58:44 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 9:43 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> > I think these days there's no reason for the split between the archive
> > and hot_standby wal levels. The split was made out of volume and
> > stability concerns. I think we can by now
On 03/02/15 13:51, Magnus Hagander wrote:
On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 1:43 PM, Andres Freund mailto:and...@2ndquadrant.com>> wrote:
Hi,
I think these days there's no reason for the split between the archive
and hot_standby wal levels. The split was made out of volume and
stability co
On 2015-02-03 13:51:25 +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> Those who want to optimize their WAL size can set it back to minimal, but
> let's make the default the one that makes life *easy* for people.
Precisely. New users won't usually have tremendous stuff to load in the
specific circumstances in whi
On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 9:43 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> I think these days there's no reason for the split between the archive
> and hot_standby wal levels. The split was made out of volume and
> stability concerns. I think we can by now be confident about the
> wal_level = hot_standby changes (not
On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 1:43 PM, Andres Freund
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I think these days there's no reason for the split between the archive
> and hot_standby wal levels. The split was made out of volume and
> stability concerns. I think we can by now be confident about the
> wal_level = hot_standby cha
Hi,
I think these days there's no reason for the split between the archive
and hot_standby wal levels. The split was made out of volume and
stability concerns. I think we can by now be confident about the
wal_level = hot_standby changes (note I'm not proposing hot_standby =
on).
So let's remove t
14 matches
Mail list logo
